Controversy: March 2007 Archives

Donald Trump and the dead animal on his head appear on David Letterman's show tonight. The interview was taped earlier in the week so part of what Trump said is already making the rounds. Dave, of course, asked him about his stupid feud with Rosie O'Donnell and Chump, I mean Trump, went on to give his assessment of what is going on behind the scenes at "The View" and how Barbara Walters is no long a friend of his (how can anybody be a friend of this creep unless they are bought and paid for?)
"She was trying to protect Rosie," he said of Walters. "She just said things that weren’t so and therefore I sort of wrote her off my list. She’s off the list."
Is this guy for real? It's almost like he should be on "The Real Housewives of Orange County."
Chump goes on to say that he actually sympathizes with Walters: "Rosie is sort of taking over the show from Barbara. It was sad to watch what was happening. But Rosie, they say, almost beat her up in the green room, and Barbara went out and did things she shouldn’t do. I felt badly for Barbara. In a way, I feel that Barbara was just trying to keep the whole thing together. I don’t totally blame her."
How thoughful of him to show such concern for Walters, a real tiger and trailblazer who was the first woman to co-host "The Today Show" and the evening news and has faced off against more world leaders than Trump the Chump can probably name.
Yes, Rosie has changed the show's dynamic. Is that a bad thing? Obviously viewers don't care since ratings are through the roof - something that cannot be said of Trump's tired "Apprentice" show.
He managed to say one sort of decent thing though about his behavior during the height of the Rosie feud: "I called her names that I certainly shouldn’t have called her."
I'll say.
Then he confesses that the whole thing "has been fun, actually.”
Doesn't that just say everything about this, as Walters called him, "poor pathetic man"?
So Letterman tells Trump he doesn’t have the stomach for feuds like that to which Trump, slipping back into first-grade mode, says:“It doesn’t take much of a stomach. She’s got the stomach for it,” refering to Rosie.
The audience's reaction? Groans.
Trump is now officially groan-inducing, and not in a good way.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation will hold it's annual awards ceremony in Hollywood next month honoring mainstream media that portrays the LGBT community in a positive and realistic light. But it is becoming a sore spot among here! Networks that its gay and lesbian programming is not eligible.
In a letter sent yesterday to GLAAD President Neil Giuliano, here! Networks did not mince words in letting their feelings about being excluded known. They say they "completely disagree" with GLAAD's decision to continue the focus of the Media Awards on mainstream media last year after this same issue was raised by the folks at (MTV's LGBT network) Logo.
"Media has changed dramatically over the years because of the blood, sweat, and tears of brave LGBT activists, yet GLAAD has not adjusted its policies and strategies to account for this as it relates to the high profile Media Awards," wrote Stephen F. Macias, senior vice president, corporate and marketing communications of here! Networks. "In the absence of strategic change from GLAAD, the organization’s largest event is on the verge of becoming irrelevant and the millions of dollars raised wasted when LGBT Americans need strong leadership more than ever."
Guiliano (pictured) maintains that the decision is consistent with their primary mission which "is to advocate for fair, accurate, and inclusive LGBT stories in mainstream media.  We want mainstream media outlets to include us in their stories and programming – and to do it well.  The GLAAD Media Awards program is designed to help GLAAD achieve that mission, and is the logical extension of – and in many ways the culmination of – our work with media outlets throughout the year.”
 Counters Macias: "Is GLAAD defining mainstream as only “Straight” outlets? Your Media Awards logic suggests that. It is a defining moment when a LGBT civil rights organization equates mainstream and straight as synonymous implying that fringe and LGBT are also synonymous. GLAAD should either change in its mission statement to clearly state that it is only promoting straight/mainstream media programming or discontinue the exclusion of gay media from submitting work for a GLAAD Media Award."
He adds that "gay networks are raising the bar around what mainstream media should consider fair, accurate, and inclusive work. No longer is the LGBT community beholden to “mainstream” media as the only place where we might catch a glimpse of ourselves. We salute those outlets that in the past have included our community in their programming, and now LGBT media joins them in expanding our stories."
Here! is playing hardball with more than just words. They said they will no longer be supporting GLAAD or its awards as a major sponsor"until this policy is changed to be fair and inclusive."

So look at the picture above of the Pentagon's top general, Peter Pace, addressing the troops. You gotta figure that there are more than one in that crowd who are gay, who are not being asked and who are not telling. They are choosing to serve our country, gay or straight, and I am grateful beyond words. That's why I was so glad to see the world come down hard on Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he told a Chicago Tribune reporter this week that he supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy because it allows gays to serve and doesn't make "a judgment about individual acts."
Then he went on to say the following: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well-served through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."
OK, so that's how he feels. I'm SURE he's not immoral in any way.Pul-eeeeeze! And is he about to tell Dick Cheney that his lesbian daughter is immoral in any way? Does this Pace believe that our stretched-too-thin military is better off for discharging more than 10,000 troops including more than 50 specialists in Arabic since 1994?
After a flurry of condemnation, Pace responded by saying that he "should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
Ya think?
Politicians from both parties, of course, weighed in. Nancy Pelosi slammed Pace as did Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts who has introduced legislation seeking to repeal the anti-gay policy. "Our military is struggling to find and keep soldiers we need. We are turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination," Meehan said. But I was most interested in the statement made by Virginia Senator John Warner, a former Secretary of Navy who is mighty Republican but was also married to Elizabeth Taylor for six years: "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."
It is ironic that Warner's statement was stronger than those made by Democratic presidential front-runners Senators Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. who initially played it safe in that maddening way that politicans do.
Said Clinton Tuesday when an ABC reporter asked her whether homosexuality is immoral: "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."
Huh?
Said Obama on Wednesday when pressed Obama for reaction to Pace's comments: "Traditionally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."
Inspiring.
It wasn't until a homosexual advocacy group ripped both candidates for being so wishy-washy that they finally said something that resembled a position.
"Well, I've heard from a number of my friends, and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely," Clinton told Bloomberg News Thursday. "I do not think homosexuality is immoral."
Gee, good thing she heard from her friends. Otherwise she would still be leaving it up to others to decide and not have a position?
Also Thursday, Obama released a statement on the issue. "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."
Yawn.
Thank God that Jo Wyrick, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, let Clinton and Obama know just how lame their initial comments were. Without mentioning either of the 2008 presidential candidates by name, Wyrick said that "most Democrats understand, and should understand, that morality isn't derived from sexual orientation or gender identity. Morality is how you treat your neighbor, support your community and sacrifice for your family and country. When I tuck my daughter into bed at night, those are the values I teach her.
Wyrick went on to say: "We expect Democratic candidates and elected officials to reaffirm those same values, to speak up when families or individuals are scapegoated or maligned for political gain, and to proactively argue the benefits of treating all Americans equally under the law without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Well said.
Hey! Maybe Wyrick should run for president! She at least has the guts to say what she feels and to express herself clearly and thoughtfully. Imagine that.

I am sure that it would be overly optimistic to think that Ann Coulter, who has written and said so many cruel things over the years, is doing any soul searching over the controversy swirling around her right now. I'm not convinced she has a soul, quite frankly.
This piece from Editor & Publisher gives some terrific insight into what some of the newspapers who plan to continue running her column are thinking right now:
At least seven of Ann Coulter's approximately 100 clients dropped her column this week, meaning more than 90 are keeping the feature -- at least for now. Editor & Publisher called some newspapers to find out why they've opted to continue publishing her in the wake of Coulter's March 2 "faggot" reference about former Sen. John Edwards (and her previous incendiary comments).
"She didn't use that language in her column," said Michael P. Clark, editorial page editor of The Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville. If she had used the F-word slur in her Universal Press Syndicate feature, he added, "we would have edited it out."
Clark declined further comment, except to conclude: "We plan to keep her column."
The Casper Star-Tribune also plans to continue publishing Coulter. "I don't like Ann Coulter, but many of my readers do," said Clark Walworth, editor of the Wyoming daily. "And I resent being lectured to by people who don't even subscribe to my paper."
Walworth was referring to the liberal MediaMatters.org site posting the names of Coulter's clients and suggesting that people contact those papers. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a gay-rights group, has also urged people to contact some of the conservative Coulter's clients.
David Hampton, editorial director of The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., reported that his newspaper received about 3,000 e-mails since last night due to the MediaMatters.org listing. "It's the most mail I've ever gotten on anything," he told E&P, adding that he has also received some calls from local readers criticizing Coulter.
Like Walworth, Hampton is not a Coulter fan. "I've never agreed with anything that woman has uttered or written," he said. But Hampton is keeping Coulter, at least for now, because he wants a wide variety of commentary in The Clarion-Ledger. "She's loved and hated by many people in our region," Hampton added.
Hampton did emphasize that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" was "terrible, offensive, and out of line" -- and that her column is "really on the edge" of what his paper accepts. "We do monitor her column closely -- more than our other columns," he said, resulting in some of her past pieces either being spiked or edited.
"I think her popularity will continue to wane," concluded Hampton. "I believe ideas rise and fall on their merits, and I haven't seen much depth in hers."
The Associated Press reported that another Coulter client, the Elko (Nev.) Daily Free Press, decided Friday to keep the columnist after soliciting the opinions of readers.
On Thursday, the Free Press had posted a note reporting that it received thousands of e-mails generated by the HRC campaign, but said none of the e-mails were local. So the paper asked local readers to weigh in.
"As of this morning we had received nearly 60 phone calls or faxes, and about nine out of 10 wanted us to keep running Ann Coulter," said Free Press Managing Editor Jeff Mullins, as quoted in a Friday story in his paper.
Mullins added: "Many callers said they thought Ann Coulter had a right to express herself, and they did not want us to be swayed by those seeking her removal."

So am I reporting this because I enjoy it or because it is legitimate news? Let's say a little bit of both...
Editor & Publisher reports that at least two more daily newspapers -- The Oakland Press of Michigan and The Mountain Press of Sevierville, Tenn. -- have dropped Ann Coulter's column. A daily in Pennsylvania had dropped the column two days ago and the Shreveport Times dropped it yesterday.
Boo hoo.
Oakland Press Editorial Page Editor Allan Adler said Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in a Friday speech was "definitely a factor" in his newspaper's decision. He also read a statement from his paper that went as follows:
"When we picked up Ann Coulter, it was because we felt we needed a conservative columnist ... and we knew she had a following. She certainly no longer represents conservatism and apparently is more interested in being a celebrity. We are searching for a new columnist and will no longer be running Coulter."
In a story today on its Web site, The Mountain Press said it dropped Coulter because of her "distasteful and irresponsible comments over the weekend about a presidential candidate. Coulter referred to Democratic candidate John Edwards as a 'faggot' in a Friday speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. Her comments were denounced by both Republicans and Democrats," the Tennessee paper noted.
"When we agree to buy a syndicated column we expect the writer to offer responsible, reasoned opinion on national and international issues," Editor Stan Voit said in the story. "Ms. Coulter's column drew an unusual amount of criticism from our readers when we first started running it, but we felt she was a nationally known writer offering her opinions in her own style. However we will not continue to publish the columns of someone who uses people as a punch line to get a cheap laugh and who so freely uses an offensive term to describe another human being."
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign gay-rights organization announced a campaign late Thursday to get other Coulter newspaper clients to drop the columnist. This comes a day after HRC started a letter-writing effort that resulted in what it said were more than 20,000 messages urging Universal Press Syndicate to stop distributing Coulter.
Coulter reportedly has about 100 clients, but HRC was only able to find the names of seven through online searches. David Smith, HRC's vice president of programs, said many of the clients may be too small to show up in searches.

Her syndicate may be sticking with her column but at least one of their clients is not. Here is what Executive Editor Alan English wrote about the decision:
Today we move past the rhetoric and unproductive dialogue offered by Ann Coulter. The Times is dropping her column effective immediately. It is her recent “joke” about John Edwards being considered a “faggot” that is the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time. We had a dialogue with readers last year regarding whether Coulter was a responsible commentator and journalist.
Her repeated use of hyperbole in the call for the death of some journalists and politicians was beyond the pale. And while we all believe she was “just kidding,” her "shock-jock'' writing style is no different from Howard Stern's practical jokes and bathroom humor that aims to draw a school-yard snicker but falls well short of reasonable, thought-provoking journalism. Unlike the work of a Thomas Sowell or a Kathleen Parker, two thoughtful conservatives, does a Coulter column raise the level of discourse?
The answer: rarely.
...We are committed to providing a balance in commentary, so Coulter will be replaced by another conservative voice. ...Above all this isn't some liberal vendetta. If so, Coulter would have fallen off our pages years ago. Sure, The Times has supported what many perceive to be liberal ideas or politicians before, but we also have spoken for fiscal restraint and opposed certain taxes.
...For those who find affirmation and validity in Coulter diatribes, God bless you and keep you. But since last summer's open-air discussion of our reservations about continuing her column, you had to know it was only a matter of time before she rubbed a hole in the welcome mat. It even seems as if she was pushing to find the limit. Well ...

The blog The Horse's Mouth reports that Universal Press Syndicate, the outfit that syndicates Ann Coulter's column, is not buckling under tremendous pressure to drop Coulter's column in the wake of her "faggot" comment. The gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, for instance, launched a letter-writing campaign late yesterday demanding that UPS nix her column.

UPS editor and President Lee Salem has a letter that he sends to people who write in about Coulter. It reads: "Thank you for taking the time to write. The contracts with the many writers and cartoonists we represent call for specific products and we have no legal interest in what they may do or say outside of that relationship. In the case of Ann Coulter (and others across the political spectrum whom readers have urged us to drop), she is not an employee and we have no legal power to "fire" her, though, of course, any of her subscribing newspapers can drop her column at any time. Whether the words she chose in referring to John Edwards were misplaced humor or outright bigotry, we would not have distributed them in her column."

Well, I guess that's that. For now. Stay tuned!

"American Idol" Executive Producer Nigel Lythgoe is slamming Rosie O'Donnell for saying his show is "racist" and "weightist." O'Donnell made her comments Tuesday on "The View" which is now banned from showing clips from "Idol."
"Without wishing to add to the obvious self-promotion of Ms. O'Donnell, I feel as though I must refute her absurd and ridiculous claims that 'American Idol' is racist and/or weightist," Lythgoe says in a statement just posted on TMZ.com. "Ms. O'Donnell has, once again, spoken without thought or knowledge. Viewers need only look at the show tonight to realize that 'American Idol' constantly confirms to America that talent has nothing to do with weight or color."
Rosie called the show "weightist and racist" over the way it has handled the Antonella Barba photo scandal this season, as opposed to when it booted contestant Frenchie Davis for the same thing. Although an "Idol" spy tells TMZ that the difference is that Frenchie was paid for her pre-Idol porn, while Antonella's photos were private, and published without her knowledge or permission.

Poor Ann Coulter.
The hateful right-wing pundit, who inexplicably referred to John Edwards as a "faggot" at the CPAC conference last week, is seeing advertisers flee from her website. This is the list so far, via Towleroad.com: Net Bank, Verizon, Washington Mutual, AT&T/Cingular, Dollar Rent-A-Car, SmileTrain.org, University of Phoenix, Sallie Mae, LasikPlus, Power Chord Academy, Gulf Shores.com/Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ulta.com, and Yellow Pages.com.
In addition: The Lancaster New Era, a daily paper, told readers it "halted publication of Ann Coulter's syndicated column telling readers that "Coulter's use of name-calling, sarcasm, and overstatement in her columns too often detracts from the arguments she seeks to make. ...Lancaster County residents of whatever political view -- conservative, moderate, or liberal -- deserve intelligent discussion of issues. Ann Coulter no longer provides that."
The Human Rights Campaign is to "remove Ann Coulter from public discourse" by contacting Universal Press Syndicate, the world's largest independent newspaper syndicate and are providing a webpage to do just that.

It's kind of a PAGE SIX day it seems. They are running an item on Isaiah Washington that I can't help but think is probably right on the mark. Since the actor could have very well lost his job on "Grey's Anatomy" after hurling a gay slur at castmate T.R. Knight so he can't be in any kind of position to negotiate a raise.
Anyway, here is the NY Post item verbatim: Katherine Heigl got into a dispute with ABC over her "Grey's Anatomy" salary last week - claiming she wanted to be paid as much as co-stars Sandra Oh and Isaiah Washington - but we hear things aren't going so well for Washington, either. "All the actors are in the midst of contract renegotiations," a source said. "But ABC is using Isaiah's recent troubles to keep from paying him more." Washington recently had to go into anger-management rehab after he'd called fellow co-star T.R. Knight a "f - - - - t." According to our insider, "Isaiah knows it is his fault that he may not get the fat raise he was going to get. ABC doesn't have to give him anything - he is under contract for seven years - and this is going to cost him millions. It's just a bitter pill he is going to have to swallow." A rep for Washington said, "We are going to do our business in private, not in the press." A rep for ABC didn't return calls.

Not surprisingly, Ann Coulter chose to appear on FOX News to try and explain what she was trying to accomplish by calling John Edwards a "faggot" at the CPAC conference last week.
I don't think she really helps herself here:
"I didn't use an insulting word. I used a schoolyard word, about a married man with children — for the eight billionth time, and the audience knew that. I mean the joke wouldn't have worked if I had inserted the name of a gay Democrat. Any other Democrat, the name could have been inserted. It could have been Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton because it's a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss, meaning nerd, meaning weenie, meaning lame."

Towleroad.com reports that some of the advertisers on Coulter's website have received complaints and at least three companies — Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank — have pulled their ads from her site. I hope more follow suit.

Right wing pundit Ann Coulter makes my skin crawl. Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Coulter took aim at John Edwards and both Clintons: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered. (What are they? In kindergarten?)
Coulter had previously put “even money” on Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) “[c]oming out of the closet,” and said former President Bill Clinton shows “some level of latent homosexuality.” She had also called Vice President Al Gore a “total fag.”
But she has a supporter in former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) who before Coulter's Friday appearance at the same events told the audience: “I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese issued this statement later today:: “We demand that every single Presidential candidate in attendance at this conference, along with Vice President Cheney stand up and publicly condemn this type of gutter-style politics,” Solmonese said. “If not, then their silence will be deafening to the vast majority of Americans who believe this type of language belongs no where near the discussions about the future of our country.”

Looks like Melissa Etheridge doesn't have to worry about running into one of radio's most antigay personalities when she's visiting her powerhouse agency, Creative Artists Agency (CAA). E! Online's Marc Malkin reports that he just got word from CAA's rep, who said in an email, "No longer rep him."
TMZ had reported earlier today that CAA recently signed Michael Savage, who hosts the conservative radio program Savage Nation. Savage went off on Etheridge's Oscar win, because she had thanked her wife, Tammy Lynn Michaels, during her acceptance speech. "I don't like a woman married to a woman," he said. "It makes me want to puke. I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse."
Sounds like CAA doesn't want to have a big-mouthed bigot on its roster...

And you wonder why there is so much hate in the world, why so many gay people stay closeted? Bigoted people like Michael Savage. Here's what he had to say on the Feb. 28 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show about gay marriage and parenting: "It makes me want to puke. ... I think it's child abuse"
People like him scare me and their influence is dangerous. His show, "The Savage Nation," reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show. The Creative Artists Agency, one of the world's leading talent and literary agencies, recently announced that it had signed Savage for "representation in all areas," including television and film.
Savage made the anti-gay remarks after playing an audio clip of the beginning of singer Melissa Etheridge's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards in which she thanked her wife and four children. Savage said: "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse." Savage later similarly stated: "I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission. What does a child know? Ask them when they're 16 whether they want to be raised by two lesbians or two men," adding: "What are the two men doing behind the other wall? You think the children don't hear it?"
During the same broadcast, in response to a caller who asked, "How do we answer our kids when we're forced to [sic] -- this homosexuality upon us?" Savage said: "You say there are people who are sexually confused, who think that they're men when they're women. They're not normal. Normal people are not like that. Normal people are like Mommy and Daddy. Mommy and Daddy are normal. There are people who are not normal." He concluded by saying, "That's what you have to say to them otherwise a child will grow up confused."